FROM NCOME OVER „BLOEDRIVIER“[1838] TO NCOME AND BEYOND Ben Khumalo-Seegelken Abstract: Before and long after the Voortrekkers and their descendants had turned to rename the river Ncome “Bloedrivier”, at least two oral versions about the battle on and around 16 December 1838 circulated among the earlier inhabitants of that region on the one hand and the trekker- and settler-communities on the other. Generations of history-writers and –teachers have with only a few exceptions generally preferred to adopt and promote the trekker-version uncritically with the result of it presently being treated in text-books and research as the only valid account of the iMpi yaseNcome [1838]. Two simple and yet not so simple questions deserve a conclusive answer: What took place at Ncome on and around 16 December 1838? When and on what reason and for what purpose was the river Ncome renamed „Bloedrivier“? A third and a fourth question – probably the most essential ones – arise: Where do we go from here? Should one not be seriously concerned, that the focus and the emphasis in the commemoration of December 16 and the management of the site(s) of iMpi yaseNcome today would rather retard and threaten to reverse the laudable intentions and endeavours connected with the „Day of Reconciliation“ in democratic ‘new South Africa’? This paper sets out in the first place to present a brief account as to when the date and the venue under review attained which designations on the side of the descendants of the Voortrekkers and on what reason or in which intention. A selection of oral versions of the narrative about iMpi yaseNcome circulating among the inhabitants of the areas surrounding Ncome today which could help to identify such divergences and contradictions to the standardised version as might and do prevail in text-books and research today, has been compiled by the author. In this paper this shall, however, merely be referred to without engaging in the comparative analysis that would have to be undertaken, if an attempt were to be made to revisit and probably revise the writing of history about the iMpi yaseNcome in text-books and research today – a project that could induce ongoing processes of mutual understanding and inspire not only the descendants of the Ncome-generation to persist in striving for reconciled togetherness. In conclusion, perspectives for implementation are outlined and a proposal is made concerning an iHlambo likazwelonke (a national Cleansing- and Reconciliation-Ceremony) at Ncome-Bloedrivier on 16 December 2014 [20 years democracy] could, for example, be the most suitable opportunity for initiating such transformation country-wide. Keywords: Kommandos; amabutho [regiments]; iMpi yaseNcome; protagonists; dates and venues; Weltanschauung; historiography; sources; documents; personal memories; public commemoration; retrospective construction; narratives; myths; ideological instrumentalisation; unintentional confluence and congruence of interests; interdependence and interconnectedness; burden, perspective and legacy; Land Issue; Dingaansdag; Geloftedag; Day of Reconciliation; uMkhonto weSizwe; constructively critical scholarship; responsible citizenry; ‘die Groot Trek’; Apartheid; Voortrekker-monument(s) (Völkerschlacht-Denkmal/Leipzig); iHlambo likazwelonke. Ben Khumalo-Seegelken, Theologian, Social-Scientist and Human-Rights’ Activist, lived at iMbali and KwaPata near Pietermaritzburg (South Africa) and worked – in the employ of the Edendale Lay Ecumenical Centre [1972-1975] - with the youth in and around Edendale, reaching out to Pietermaritzburg, Durban and surroundings with initiatives and ventures to defy apartheid and to equip young people with information, knowledge and skills to participate effectively in “the Struggle”, escaped detention and attained political asylum 2 in West Germany [1975], lives and works in a variety of civil-rights’ networks both in South Africa and in Germany. FROM NCOME OVER „BLOEDRIVIER” [1838] TO NCOME AND BEYOND 1 Some of the Principles underlying Historiography I start by briefly calling to mind five of the common factors that determine the pursuit of reading and writing history and histories [historiography] in scholarly and public fields: - Reading and writing history and histories has to do with persons and communities in relation to incidents, dates and venues over periods of time. - Readers and writers of history are very often not identical with the protagonists of the same history even though they might be descendants of these. - Readers and writers of history can take cognisance of and relate to instances, occurrences and undertakings preceding their own lifetime primarily by acquring access to sources and documents – oral, archeological, graphical, etc. [including most probably memory-notes by Zeitzeugen (Contemporaries; „veterans“) as well]. - Instances, occurrences and undertakings preceding the lifetime of contemporary readers and writers of history are subject to interpretation. - Models and versions of interpretation vary according to circumstances [izimo; omstandighede] including socio-political, economic and ideological factors. [“Weltanschaaung“ – a subconscious perspective on issues and developments that is admittedly subjective] 2 Observations and Conclusions There are three observations and conclusions that I have arrived at and am grappling with in my endeavour to read and understand the history of the iMpi yaseNcome: 1. In as much as a calendar-date can – over a certain period – come to be known, remembered and commemorated under differing names, a venue of a particular instance, occurrence or undertaking can adopt or discard the names given to it consecutively or simultaneously. The 16th of December and the river Ncome are two examples in this regard. 2. Readers and writers of history will always know of various models and versions of interpretation and will often tend to favour or disfavour the one or the other depending on circumstances [izimo; omstandighede] including socio-political, economic and ideological factors. [„Weltanschaaung“- an admittedly subjective underlying perspective on issues and developments]. 3. Readers and writers of history do participate in varying scholarly and public undertakings and are capable of facilitating contemporary processes of addressing the past in a given context even responsibly and sustainably. 3 iMpi yaseNcome: two essential questions 3 Two simple and yet not so simple questions deserve attention to start with: What took place at Ncome on and around 16 December 1838? When and on what reason and for what purpose was the river Ncome renamed „Bloedrivier“? Naturally a third question – certainly the most important one - has to be posed: Where do we go from here? I cite a few examples to illustrate the significance of these questions and, hopefully, to substantiate my subsequent attempts to answer them as well as the proposals I wish to make and the arguments I present: 4 Examples: calendar-dates | venues – changing names A number of years after the military encounter at Ncome on 16 December 1838, the survivors on both sides – amabutho kaZulu [the regiments of the Zulu-Kingdom] and the Voortrekker- kommandos – and their families used to remember that day and commemorated it in their homes in different ways. In 1864 – well over two and a half decades after iMpi yaseNcome, the survivors from the ranks of the Voortrekker-kommandos, their families and their descendants decided to widen the scope and saw to it that the commemorating of 16 December 1838 henceforth be an issue of public interest in their church and - shortly after that [1865] - also in one of the territories that they had up to then occupied and renamed the Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek [later renamed the Transvaal]: The Synod, the governing body of their Church, meeting at Pietermaritzburg in what had then been declared the British Colony of Natal, resolved on October 3, 1864 that „Dingaansdag“, as the 16th of December then used to be referred to, be observed in the life and liturgy of the congregations within its area of influence; an annual commemoration-service, that would be co-convened by their Church at Ncome, was agreed upon. To a public holiday, „Dingaansdag“, was declared in 1865 in the territory the Voortrekkers had renamed “Transvaal”, that was over 27 years after the iMpi yaseNcome. When in 1910 the territories that both the British and the Boers had up to then declared their own colonies or ‘republics’ were put together to form what they termed the Union of South Africa, they installed „Dingaansdag“ as public holiday in the entire territory known to us today as South Africa. I take a big leap from 1910 up to 1952; am aware that, in doing so, I leave a series of aspects of our theme untouched. These are, for example: ‘die Groot Trek’ in the context of developments in Africa and elsewhere before and after iMpi yaseNcome; the World Wars; Apartheid; Voortrekker-monuments in their relationship to the Völkerschlacht-Denkmal (War- Memorial Monument) in Leipzig in its significance to the Nazi-dictatorship in Germany [1933-1945] and in their significance to the apartheid-regime [1948-1994]. When in 1952 – three years after the inauguration of the Voortrekker-monument in Pretoria in 1949 – „Dingaansdag“, the 16th of December, came to be renamed Geloftedag, Day of the Covenant, almost one hundred and thirteen years had elapsed since the iMpi yaseNcome. None of the direct protagonists in that war were still living or were in any way actively involved in any of the